United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Report by Bernie Zipprich and Megan Smith, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Meeting just over a week after the top U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, announced that the “surge” in U.S. troops stationed in the country was now at full strength with the last of the 28,500 additional troops now in place, the House Foreign Affairs Committee convened to discuss the progress of the escalation and the current status of the ongoing war.

Witnesses:
General John Batiste, United States Army, (retired)
Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Frederick W. Kagan, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Views on the success of the surge were varied, though opinions seemed to converge on three key points:

1. Among members of the committee: General Petraeus’s report on the success of the escalation due in September would be critical for determining future support for the war.

2. Among the witnesses: The surge was as much dependent upon political, diplomatic, and economic achievements as on military achievements (although witnesses disagreed on whether such achievements had to coincide with, precede, or follow military accomplishments).

3. Current U.S. involvement in the country was at a critical juncture. The situation did not need to be as dire as it currently is, but mistakes were made early on. The American public as well as the Congress were losing patience with the conflict, making continued support for the mission all the more dependent upon the success of the current escalation.

Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman Remarks

-- Regardless of what happens in September, if you wish to have success you must plan to spend several more years in Iraq - into the next administration - and continue to address the political, economic, and military dimensions of this conflict.
-- Historically, it takes 10-15 years to go from the lack of stability we are witnessing presently to the type of stability we would like to see.
-- “Progress is not impossible, but progress will be in the Iraqis' time [not in American time].” In other words, progress is possible but it might not come at the pace we would like to see it.
-- We did not give the Iraqis a chance: We gave them a dangerous constitutional exercise.
-- Just routing out the counterinsurgency will not give us the results we want.
-- The Surge is not working: Deployed too broadly, we’re just pushing insurgents around rather than cleaning up.
-- September is too soon – if you wish to make this work, we need to make this work into 2008.
It is inevitable that Iran will play a major role regardless of what happens.

Major General John Batiste (ret.) Remarks

-- There is no military solution for Iraq; it must be a political and economic solution.
-- If Congress had held the executive accountable, I might still be on active duty.
-- Marine Corps and Army are at the “breaking point.”
-- Iraqi government is “incapable.”
-- It is past the time to reform national security strategy.
-- Troops are mired in the middle of a brutal civil war.
-- Iraq is distracting the U.S. from defeating global Islamist extremism.
-- The Bush administration’s strategy lacks a larger focus.
-- We need more diplomacy, as well as a political strategy that emphasizes a global culture of equals.
-- The military cannot sustain its commitments. We are losing leadership, equipment, and lower standards in the upcoming troop rotations.
-- The American public has not been asked to sacrifice.
-- Surge wasn’t a new strategy, it was reinforcements – and it was all that we could muster.
-- We lack an international coalition and competent Iraqi forces to hold and build.
-- Success in counterinsurgency is about building relations and bringing about a change in attitudes, not lethal force.
-- It is unlikely that the al Maliki government will accomplish the benchmarks that have been set .
-- We have yet to mobilize the general public against Iraqi extremism and for this war.
-- This conflict wages on, but we are still dependent on the region’s oil.
-- “We’ve put our strategic interest in the hands of an incompetent government.”
-- Withdraw in 1+ years, but it needs to be better planned than our invasion. Also needs to be coordinated with a diplomatic outreach to our neighbors.

Dr. Frederick W. Kagan Remarks

-- Iraq is our “greatest national security challenge.”
-- Too soon to evaluate a strategy that just entered its final stages.
-- Political progress follows security, it doesn’t precede it.
-- Iraq Security Forces are still too inexperienced to provide security.
-- Purpose of this plan is to stabilize Baghdad – not the country at large – as a step to making political progress feasible.
-- First phase was to establish a position in key locations in Baghdad to secure intelligence and understanding of the areas.
-- On June 15, the final brigades entered Baghdad and the second phase began – this phase aimed at disrupting insurgent networks in the areas around Baghdad.
-- This will set the stage for the third stage which will begin in late July.
-- Third stage will be a variation of clear, hold and build” – an area is cleared of insurgents, a security presence is maintained, and the area rebuilt.
-- This is the largest scale operation since 2003.
-- Deaths in Baghdad fell initially, but Anbar province has improved.
-- Al Qaeda launched a counter-surge which initially led to an increase in deaths, but this is now declining.
-- Overall, basic trends are better than expected, but it remains too early to evaluate operations whose decisive stages have only just begun.

Yesterday, the US escalated allegations regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq claiming that its Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (also known as Revolutionary Guards or IRGC) and its covert unit the Qods force played a role in an attack that killed five Americans and was using Lebanese militants to train Iraqi insurgents. Previous allegations have been off the record. Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner conducted the public briefing.

In response, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) reiterated the need to keep open the possibility of using military force against Iran, but stopped short of advocating an immediate military strike.
----

This article was originally posted at Iran Nuclear Watch. For more information on Iran, please contact Carah Ong of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation at cong AT armscontrolcenter.org

This article was originally posted on Nukes of Hazard.
----

The Washington Post reported last Friday that former president Bill Clinton is skeptical about the expansion of missile defense sites into Poland and the Czech Republic.

"My facts may be wrong, but my impression is that we are creating a crisis here when none is necessary."

"I don't think the missile defense system is reliable enough to create an impact."

"Unless they work better than I think they do, it's a colossal waste of money."

Clinton’s facts are not wrong. Missile defense is the most expensive item in the defense budget--the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects the average spending for the missile defense system to be $13 billion per year between 2006 and 2024. Well over $100 billion has been spent on missile defense to date.

With such a high price tag you would think the system works. Nope. Missile defense is being deployed even though tests of the system continue to fail or remain far from real world conditions.

Congress is skeptical of the Euro-missile plans as well. The House has cut the administration’s $310 million request by half, and barred construction of new European sites until a series of benchmarks is met. Among the many benchmarks are:

* The U.S. must sign agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland. Even if the Czech and Polish leadership can push missile defense without losing their jobs (a task looking increasingly unlikely as these leaders’ constituents are sharply opposed to the missile defense plans), signing formal bilateral agreements could take years to finalize.

* The Pentagon must demonstrate that the systems being deployed are reliable. Tests so far have not demonstrated missile defense reliability, but don’t take my word for it… you can test the system yourself.

Sometimes academics and policy-types discuss the militarization or radicalization of societies as a result of prolonged exposure to violence. It sounds bad in the antiseptic confines of the Ivory Tower, but it looks even worse when you see it happening right in front of your face.


This photo from the AP shows a young Iraqi boy crying as two older boys stage a mock execution in Baghdad. According to the AP, one of the most popular games for Iraqi children is "militias and police," which I guess would be roughly analogous to Americans' "cowboys and Indians." Except that American children's games, while sometimes violent, are not reinforced by the same levels of violence as in Iraq.

If we worry about the harming effects violence on TV and in movies has on American kids, or, even more provocatively, the harming effects gang and drug violence has on inner-city American kids, can you even imagine what the bloodshed in Iraq is doing to Iraqi kids?

A whole generation of Iraqi children is undoubtedly being radicalized by the violence in Iraq. The "blowback" effects of the U.S. invasion will be felt for decades to come.

Or, as Brigadier General John Johns (USA, Ret.), Board Member at Council for a Livable World, put it:

“In terms of utility and the likelihood of negative repercussions, the U.S. in Iraq is now equivalent to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Just as we are presently threatened by mujahadeen elements radicalized in Afghanistan, so will our children be threatened by terrorists radicalized in Iraq."
----

This article was originally posted on The Iraq Insider. For more information on Iraq, please contact Travis Sharp at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

A new poll conducted by The Pew Research Center and released on June 27, 2007 find that the image of the US around the world has plummeted, "including sharp drops in favorability among traditional allies in Western Europe, as well as substantial declines in Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere."

Of Iran-related interest is the view on US democracy promotion. US democracy promotion is seen as inconsistent (page 5 of the poll). Majorities in 43 of 47 countries surveyed – including 63% in the United States – say that the US promotes democracy mostly where it serves its interests, rather than promoting it wherever it can.
----

This post was originally found on Iran Nuclear Watch. For more information on Iran, please contact Carah Ong of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, at cong AT armscontrolcenter.org

This was originally posted at The Iraq Insider.
----

We've been tracking the developments in Congress on the next round of votes on Iraq. Here is our working list of what may be in play during the weeks ahead.

The House could hold a number of votes on Iraq in July

1. An amendment to mandate the withdrawal of all American troops by July 1, 2008

2. Skelton (D-MO) amendment to overturn the 2002 authorization to go to war

3. A prohibition on permanent military bases in Iraq

4. Murtha (D-PA) amendment to block military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in a combat zone

The Senate could hold a number of votes on Iraq in July

1. Levin (D-MI) - Reed (D-RI) amendment to mandate a change of policy by early next year

2. Feingold (D-WI) - Reid (D-NV) amendment to force the withdrawal of most troops by April 2008

3. Clinton (D-NY) - Byrd (D-WV) amendment to overturn the 2002 resolution authorizing the war

4. Webb (D-VA) amendment to block military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in a combat zone

5. Salazar (D-CO) amendment to endorse the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group

6. Biden (D-DE) - Boxer (D-CA) amendment on partition of Iraq


* Please contact Travis Sharp at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation for more information on the Iraq War, at: tsharp [at] armscontrolcenter.org

John Isaacs (Executive Director of the Council for a Livable World) spoke with former U.S. Representative Tom Andrews of Win Without War in this week's "Anti-War Room".



You can check out more videos from the Council at the Council Video Log.